Church Structure

Both Local and Universal

The Christian faith is based upon the witness of a group of disciples, chosen by Jesus Himself.

Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church AD 450 – 680, John Meyendorff

Christ’s death and resurrection are witnessed by the historical record; these are also witnessed via the living community of the Church. The ministries of the Church were determined by their functions in the local eucharistic gatherings, as noted in both the New Testament and the writings of the early Church Fathers: bishops, presbyters, deacons.

Despite the fact that the essential organizational framework was local, Christians were always aware of the universal unity of the Church. Each local church was to be faithful to that which was received from the witnesses of Christ’s resurrection – an apostolic tradition. The writings of the earliest Church Fathers (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Cyprian, etc.) all reflected these concerns of unity and faithfulness. They coined the word “catholic” to reflect this desire.

The conversion of Constantine was interpreted by all Christians as a providential opportunity for realizing this “catholicity” more fully.

The emperor would offer powerful assistance in securing this uniformity. Yet, in this new paradigm, the Church had to adapt its institutions, and also develop new ones, in order to correspond to its newly dominant position in society.

We see the result of this via the several ecumenical councils called during the fourth and fifth centuries: a church that would parallel the structures of the empire while at the same time maintain the basic elements of a local, eucharistic, structure. As is clear, these two objectives often would clash with each other: ever-increasing institutional hierarchies in tension with the structure of a local church community. This was especially problematic when the emperor supported heresy.

Conflicts could be resolved if the adaptation required by the Church to imperial laws did not conflict with its mission; however, conflict was inevitable if the State attempted to use the Church to pursue its own interests.

The history of the first years under a Christian emperor opened the door to Protestant charges of a surrender of Christianity to the emperor and a loss of the “true” New Testament church, as well as Roman Catholic charges of “caesaro-papism.” While each view held some glimpses of truth (more or less, advancing and waning), the historical reality was that of a rapidly growing Church (which was finally escaping persecution) requiring new structures to deal with such revolutionary changes.

In the fifth century, the leadership of a single bishop, helped by a college of presbyters, and a group of deacons, was the universally accepted model of local church structure.

There was not some formal decree implementing this, and the terminology of the offices was inconsistent, yet this three-fold structure seems to have been the dominant, if not singular (I am hesitant to accept claims such as “universal”), model.

Further, how each of the three offices exercised their authority was not consistently applied across different jurisdictions. During the first centuries, there was evolution – for example, the bishop going from the head of one church community to heading numerous communities in a region. This evolution was not uniform.

Clearly, the Church was rapidly forgetting its humble origins, and successors of the Galilean fishermen were developing more worldly concerns.

By the fourth century, the episcopal function became associated with a city – in some cases exercising more local authority than the old municipal curia. In other cases, a bishop would preside over dozens of rural “bishops.” As the church spread and grew, of course such evolution should not be surprising.

Who had the authority to appoint / elect a bishop? The people or the clergy? Disagreements regarding this would sometimes become occasion of riots. Once appointed, a bishop was the bishop for life. Some powerful bishops (archbishops) would even come to be nicknamed new “pharaohs.”

Meanwhile, it was the duty of the emperor to remove heretical bishops. This authority was not questioned; it was considered the emperor’s sacred duty. At the same time, the Church would take on more and more of the role of governing various welfare institutions. Hospital attendants, deacons for the care of the community, orphanages, alms houses, hostels – all under church authority, in some cases involving hundreds, if not thousands on the ecclesiastical payroll.

Church wealth grew tremendously, not only from endowments from the emperor (of which there were many), but also bequests to monasteries or to the Church directly. However, it was emphasized that these were to be free will gifts – no such thing as a tithe was enforced, it being considered Old Testament legalism. The first glimpse of such a requirement was seen in the sixth century in Merovingian Gaul.

With such wealth afforded to the Church, many bishops grew individually wealthy. Various forms of bribery or simony crept into customary practice. There was fierce competition to gain an ecclesiastical position.

Married or celibate clergy? Early on, bishops and priests were to be celibate or in monogamous relationships. By the seventh century, the West adopted a rule of celibacy, although this did not become universally enforced for several centuries. The East allowed marriage for priests, but required celibacy for higher office. Unmarried women could be deaconesses – this disappearing in the West in the sixth century, and in the East in the Middle Ages.

I think it goes without saying, but I will say it anyway: the norms regarding celibacy and marriage were often ignored….

Neither the New Testament, nor the early Christian tradition and practice knew any formally defined organization of the Church above the level of the local eucharistic community.

Yet, even from the beginning, there was awareness of the unity between these various local communities. In apostolic times, we see this evidenced by the authority of the leaders in Jerusalem. There was constant contact between the various communities; several bishops would gather to ordain a new bishop. Churches tracing their founding to apostles (many in the East, Rome alone in the West) respected their roles in preserving inherited tradition.

As mentioned, with Constantine, these Church structures would evolve. The evolution was not uniform, nor were new rules universally applicable. For example, the bishop of Alexandria had authority over all of Egypt, but this was not the case for other bishops in other important imperial cities regarding their regions.

By the sixth century, such centers would be established – each with jurisdiction over one or more diocese(s): Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Thessalonica, Justiniana Prima (Dacia), and Cyprus. Rome had such authority over Central and Southern Italy, however elsewhere in the West Rome held moral authority, with “metropolitans” acting independently. Titles would grow and multiply: bishop, archbishop, patriarch, catholicos, pope.

The idea of this imperial structure, with major centers and bishoprics, never fully took hold. Neither was the idea of a single, centralized structure successful. This says nothing of those Churches outside of the empire – say, in Armenia, Persia, or India.

Which brings us to Rome. Meyendorff notes up front that it is difficult to present, in a few pages, an objective view of Rome’s exact role within the universal Church by 451. Secondary literature, some positive, some negative, is numerous and too much for this overview (and way too much for me). Therefore, I take him to mean that every point he makes can be contested by another – and this will be infinitely truer for my summary.

Was Jesus referring solely to Peter? Was Rome of import primarily due to its being the imperial capital during the early Church years? We know there was a Church in Rome before any apostle made it to that city (just as is true for all cities as far as I can tell). Certainly in the West, Rome took primacy, although this was not similarly accepted in the East – at most, first among equals. Even in the fifth century, the bishop in Rome enjoyed de facto authority in helping to resolve doctrinal issues – an authority not defined in any universal conciliar decree.

In the late fourth century, letters would be written from Eastern bishops not to the bishop of Rome, but addressed to several bishops in the West. In other words, they did not see Rome as having some higher authority than these other bishops.

One benefit the bishop in Rome had: relative to the other bishops, he was reasonably outside of the grasp of the emperor in Constantinople – keeping in mind that the emperors in the West were relatively weak. In other words, in many ways he was the authority in the West. This afforded him a power structure unavailable to the bishops in the East.

Conclusion

My head hurts reading even the summary offered by Meyendorff regarding the place of Rome in the early Church, the evolution of local councils on this matter, the self-appointment of a superior position by the bishop of Rome (keeping in mind, not everyone understood Jesus’s words as applying to Peter alone), the breaking off of communion if the bishop in Rome felt challenged in his role.

My thoughts – and not that this entire issue matters to me at all…

None of the early churches were “founded,” if you will, by apostles.

Acts 2: 5 And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. 7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.”

My view: when these “devout men” returned home, they founded churches. Yes, these churches were then shepherded by apostles, but not founded by them.

To the claim that Peter is of Rome, it is equally true that Peter is of Antioch. It is also true that Mark was a disciple of Peter, and it is claimed that Mark is of Alexandria. All three have a claim to Peter, it seems to me…again, if that is meaningful in light of Christ’s (contested) statement).

My point: Jesus’s words are interpreted in different ways; the early church grew exponentially, and authority was diverse and diffuse. Just how Rome came to be seen as some type of authority morally did not change the view of the decentralized nature of authority regarding local governance.

What I am saying: the history isn’t clear, it isn’t universally accepted, and it is a subject not worth fighting about – at least not for me.